United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
Report to Congressional Committees
September 2008
DEFENSE
INFRASTRUCTURE
Opportunity to
Improve the
Timeliness of Future
Overseas Planning
Reports and Factors
Affecting the Master
Planning Effort for the
Military Buildup on
Guam
GAO-08-1005
September 2008
DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE
Accountability Integrity Reliability
Highlights
Highlights of GAO-08-1005, a report to
congressional committees
Opportunity to Improve the Timeliness of Future
Overseas Planning Reports and Factors Affecting the
Master Planning Effort for the Military Buildup on
Guam
Why GAO Did This Study
What GAO Found
The Department of Defense (DOD)
continues its efforts to reduce the
number of troops permanently
stationed overseas and consolidate
overseas bases. The Senate and
conference reports accompanying
the fiscal year 2004 military
construction appropriation bill
directed DOD to develop and GAO
to monitor DOD’s overseas master
plans and to provide annual
assessments. The Senate report
accompanying the fiscal year 2007
military construction appropriation
bill directed GAO to review DOD’s
master planning effort for Guam as
part of these annual reviews. This
report examines (1) the changes
and challenges described in the
fiscal year 2009 master plans, the
extent the plans address GAO’s
prior recommendations, and the
plans’ timeliness and (2) the status
of DOD’s master planning efforts
for the proposed buildup of
military forces and infrastructure
on Guam. GAO reviewed the plans
and other relevant documents, and
visited three overseas combatant
commands, various installations,
and Guam organizations.
While the fiscal year 2009 master plans generally reflect recent changes in U.S.
overseas basing strategies and the challenges DOD faces as well as address
GAO’s prior recommendations, DOD provided Congress the plans in May
2008, well after the February budget submission when the Senate and
conference reports require DOD to issue the plans. This year’s plans contain
information on current overseas basing strategies and infrastructure
requirements and the challenges that DOD faces implementing the plans. The
plans also generally address GAO’s recommendations except that the U.S.
Pacific Command plan does not provide an update of the Air Force’s training
challenges in South Korea, despite GAO’s prior recommendation that it should
describe the challenges and their potential effects on infrastructure and
funding requirements. DOD officials said that since last year the South Korean
government and the U.S. Air Force have taken several steps to address these
training challenges. According to DOD officials, efforts to incorporate lastminute changes in basing plans and projects and the lengthy review and
approval process have contributed to the fiscal year 2009 plans’ lateness.
While the congressional requirement for the overseas master plans expired
with the fiscal year 2009 plans, DOD said that it intends to provide Congress
annual updates of its global defense posture through 2014 and that these
updates would replace the master plans as DOD’s overseas planning report to
Congress. Since DOD will continue to provide annually updated global
defense posture reports, it has an opportunity to reexamine its timeline for
producing future reports earlier to provide Congress with time for review.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that DOD
(1) develop the global defense
posture reports earlier each year to
coincide with the budget
submissions and (2) provide
Congress annual updates of the
Guam working-level plan until a
comprehensive master plan is
finalized and provided to Congress.
DOD agreed with the second
recommendation and partially
agreed with the first, which was
clarified in response to comments.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on GAO-08-1005.
For more information, contact Brian J. Lepore
at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov.
DOD has developed a basic framework for the military buildup on Guam but
has not issued the congressionally required master plan that was initially due
in December 2006, and which Congress later extended to September 2008. The
Joint Guam Program Office, which is planning and managing the proposed
military buildup, is coordinating the multi-service development of a workinglevel plan for DOD that is to be submitted to Congress by the 2008 deadline.
However, this is a onetime requirement, and DOD officials said that the plan
will be a snapshot of the status of the planning process and will not be
considered a comprehensive master plan for several reasons. First, while the
required environmental impact statement and the resulting record of decision
will influence many key decisions about the buildup of military forces and
infrastructure on Guam, these documents are not expected to be completed
until January 2010. Also, officials of the Joint Guam Program Office said that
they expect to complete a comprehensive master plan within 90 days after
these required documents are finalized. Second, plans for the detailed force
composition of units relocating to Guam, associated facility requirements, and
implications for other services’ realignments on Guam continue to be refined.
Third, additional time is needed to fully address the challenges related to
funding uncertainties, operational requirements, and Guam’s economic and
infrastructure requirements. However, without a comprehensive master plan,
Congress may have limited data on requirements on which to make informed
appropriation decisions and to carry out its oversight responsibilities.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter
1
Results in Brief
Background
Overseas Master Plans Generally Reflect Changes, Challenges, and
Our Prior Recommendations, but Could Be More Timely
DOD Has Established a Framework for Military Buildup on Guam
but Has Yet to Develop the Congressionally Required Master
Plan
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
20
30
31
32
Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
36
Appendix II
Comments from the Department of Defense
38
Appendix III
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
40
Related GAO Products
4
7
12
41
Figure
Figure 1: U.S. Pacific, European, Central, and Africa Commands’
Proposed Areas of Responsibility on September 30, 2008
9
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
reproduce this material separately.
Page i
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
September 17, 2008
Congressional Committees
In its ongoing global realignment of U.S. forces and installations, the
Department of Defense (DOD) plans to reduce the number of troops
permanently stationed overseas and consolidate overseas bases.
Realigning the U.S. overseas posture involves closing obsolete and
redundant bases, constructing new facilities costing billions of dollars, and
ensuring that other needed infrastructure is in place to support realigned
forces and missions. For example, the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review
Initiative1 established a framework for U.S. force structure in Japan that
relocates U.S. military units from Japan to other areas, including Guam. As
a part of this initiative, DOD tentatively plans to move about 8,000 Marines
and their estimated 9,000 dependents from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam by
2014.
The Senate report and subsequent conference report accompanying the
fiscal year 2004 military construction appropriation bill directed DOD to
prepare detailed, comprehensive master plans to ensure that
infrastructure requirements at U.S. military facilities in each overseas
regional command’s area of responsibility2 reflected DOD’s global
realignment of U.S. forces and installations.3 The Senate report also
directed us to provide assessment reports on these master plans each year
to the congressional defense committees. Subsequently, the conference
report accompanying the 2004 military construction appropriation bill also
directed the department to prepare comprehensive master plans with
yearly updates through fiscal year 2009. In July 2006, the Senate report
accompanying the fiscal year 2007 military construction appropriation bill
directed DOD to submit a master plan for the military buildup in Guam by
December 29, 2006.4 This deadline was later extended to September 15,
1
DOD officials refer to the results of the negotiations between the United States and Japan
to realign U.S. forces in Japan as the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative.
2
In fulfilling this requirement, the Office of the Secretary of Defense asked the overseas
regional combatant commands to prepare comprehensive master plans for their areas of
responsibility.
3
S. Rep. No. 108-82, at 13-14 (2003) and H.R. Rep. No. 108-342, at 17 (2003) (Conf. Rep.).
4
S. Rep. No. 109-286, at 15 (2006).
Page 1
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
2008.5 The Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2007 military
construction appropriation bill also directed us to review DOD’s master
planning effort for Guam as part of our annual review of the overseas
master plans. DOD considers the master plan for Guam as separate from
the overseas master plans because Guam is a U.S. territory.
This is our fifth report responding to the requirements contained in the
fiscal year 2004 Senate military construction appropriation bill report and
our second report responding to the reporting requirements on the Guam
military buildup contained in the fiscal year 2007 Senate military
construction appropriation bill report.6 This report examines (1) the
changes and challenges described in this year’s overseas master plans, the
extent to which they address our prior recommendations,7 and the plans’
timeliness and (2) the status of DOD’s master planning efforts for the
proposed buildup of military forces and infrastructure on Guam. This
report is our final report to fulfill the congressional mandates, which
expired with DOD’s May 2008 fiscal year 2009 report.8
In conducting our work, we visited three overseas regional combatant
commands—U.S. Pacific Command, including U.S. Forces Korea and U.S.
Forces Japan; U.S. European Command; and U.S. Central Command.9 We
observed selected installation and military construction projects and
interviewed command officials to understand the challenges the
5
H.R. Rep. No.110-424, at 437 (2007) (Conf. Rep.).
6
See related GAO products at the end of this report.
7
GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Overseas Master Plans Are Improving, but DOD Needs to
Provide Congress Additional Information about the Military Buildup on Guam,
GAO-07-1015 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2007); DOD’s Overseas Infrastructure Master
Plans Continue to Evolve, GAO-06-913R (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 22, 2006); Opportunities
Exist to Improve Comprehensive Master Plans for Changing U.S. Defense Infrastructure
Overseas, GAO-05-680R (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2005); and Defense Infrastructure:
Factors Affecting U.S. Infrastructure Costs Overseas and the Development of
Comprehensive Master Plans, GAO-04-609NI (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004).
8
Department of Defense, Comprehensive Master Plans at Department of Defense Overseas
Facilities (Washington, D.C.: May 2008). This year, DOD submitted the overseas master
plans to Congress on May 13, 2008, and made them available to us on May 20, 2008.
9
We did not include U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command in our review
because they have significantly fewer facilities outside of the United States than the other
regional commands. Also not included were U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S.
Strategic Command, U.S. Joint Forces Command, and U.S. Transportation Command.
These unified, functional commands have few facilities outside the United States and have
not issued master plans for changing U.S. infrastructure overseas.
Page 2
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
commands face in implementing the master plans. After DOD issued its
fiscal year 2009 plans, we reviewed them to determine how they had
changed since last year, how they address the challenges to their
implementation, and to what extent they addressed the congressional
reporting requirements and responded to our prior recommendations. We
assessed whether the fiscal year 2009 plans were in compliance with the
Office of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) most recent guidance on
overseas master plans.10 We generally concluded that the master plans
addressed the congressional reporting requirements if the plans included
details on base categories (i.e., military population on main operating
bases, forward operating sites, and cooperative security locations),11 host
nation funding levels, facility requirements and costs, environmental
remediation issues, and other challenges affecting implementation of the
plans. To identify the challenges and determine the status of planning
efforts for the proposed buildup on Guam, we met with the Governor of
Guam, the Guam Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives, and
officials from U.S. Pacific Command, Marine Forces Pacific, Third Marine
Expeditionary Force, the Navy Joint Guam Program Office,12 the Guam
legislature, the Mayors’ Council of Guam, and various Guam community
groups. At these meetings, we discussed the challenges to the military
buildup, the planning framework for the military buildup, the schedule and
development of the Guam master plan, and the status of the environmental
10
Department of Defense, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics, Update of Overseas Master Plans (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 2007). The
congressional requirement for annual updates of the overseas master plans expired this
year with DOD’s fiscal year 2009 plans.
11
Overseas master plans defined the base categories as the following: (1) main operating
base, a facility outside the United States and U.S. territories with permanently stationed
operating forces and robust infrastructure and characterized by command and control
structures, enduring family support facilities, and strengthened force protection measures;
(2) forward operating site, a scalable location outside the United States and U.S. territories
intended for rotational use by operating forces with limited U.S. military support presence
and possibly pre-positioned equipment; and (3) cooperative security location, a facility
located outside the United States and U.S. territories with little or no permanent U.S.
presence that is maintained with periodic service, contractor, or host nation support.
Cooperative security locations provide contingency access, logistics support, and
rotational use by operating forces and can be a focal point for security cooperation
activities.
12
In August 2006, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the Secretary of the Navy to
establish the Joint Guam Program Office to plan and execute the military services’ buildup
on Guam.
Page 3
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
impact study required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.13
We visited Naval Base Guam; Andersen Air Force Base, Guam; and
potential Marine Corps basing locations to directly observe existing
installations and future military construction sites. We also analyzed
available reports and documents that described ongoing and proposed
military activities and the challenges that may affect DOD’s development
and implementation of a master plan for the proposed military buildup on
Guam.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 through
August 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for more
information on our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief
While the fiscal year 2009 overseas master plans generally reflect recent
changes in U.S. basing strategies and the challenges DOD faces in their
implementation, as well as address most of our prior recommendations,
DOD provided the plans to Congress in May 2008, 3 months after the
February 2008 budget submission, even though both the Senate and
conference reports accompanying the fiscal year 2004 military
construction bill require DOD to issue the plans with the military
construction budget submission. The master plans contain information on
current defense basing strategies and infrastructure requirements overseas
and the challenges that DOD faces in implementation of the plans. The
plans also generally address our prior recommendations except that the
U.S. Pacific Command plan does not provide details of training challenges
for the Air Force in South Korea, despite our prior recommendation that it
should describe these challenges and their potential effects on
13
The primary purpose of an environmental impact statement is to serve as an actionforcing device to ensure that the policies and goals defined in the National Environmental
Policy Act are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the federal government.
Regulations for implementing the act established by the Council on Environmental Quality
specify that to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental
impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental impact
analyses and related surveys and studies required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
and other environmental review laws and executive orders. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.25.
Page 4
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
infrastructure and funding requirements. DOD officials said that since last
year the South Korean government and the U.S. Air Force have taken
several steps to address these training challenges. However, DOD has
submitted the plans to Congress after the annual budget submissions even
though the congressional reporting requirement directed DOD to provide
updates of the master plans with each yearly military construction budget
submission. According to DOD officials, OSD’s most recent efforts to
incorporate last-minute changes in basing plans and projects contributed
to providing Congress the fiscal year 2009 plans 3 months late. Further,
overseas command officials commented that the lengthy review and
approval process among the commands and OSD also contributed to the
plans’ lateness. In comments on a draft of this report, DOD said that it
intends to replace the overseas master plans, which are no longer
mandated, with annual updates of its global defense posture as the
department’s overseas planning report to Congress through 2014. Since
the department will continue to report on its overseas planning to
Congress, it has an opportunity to reexamine its timeline for producing
these reports to provide them with the administration’s annual budget
submission to provide Congress with adequate time for review.
DOD has developed a basic framework for the military buildup in Guam
but has not issued its congressionally required comprehensive master plan
that was initially due in December 2006, and which Congress later
extended to September 2008. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command
in coordination with the Joint Guam Program Office is developing a
working-level plan for DOD that is to be submitted to Congress by the 2008
deadline. The plan will address the realignment of Marine Corps forces in
the context of other DOD proposed actions on Guam, including the Navy’s
plan to enhance its infrastructure, logistics capabilities, and waterfront
facilities and the Army’s plan to place a ballistic missile defense task force
on Guam. However, this is a onetime requirement, and DOD officials said
that this plan will be a snapshot of the status of the planning process at
that time and will not be considered a master plan for several reasons.
First, the required environmental impact statement and resulting record of
decision are not expected to be completed until December 2009 and
January 2010, respectively.14 DOD officials said that the results of these
14
Following the final environmental impact statement, DOD will prepare a record of
decision that will state what the decision is for the proposed military buildup on Guam;
identify alternatives considered and specify those that are environmentally preferable; state
whether all practicable mitigation measures were adopted, and if not, explain why; and
commit to a monitoring and enforcement program to ensure implementation of mitigation
measures.
Page 5
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
documents will influence many key decisions on the exact location, size,
and makeup of the military infrastructure development on Guam.
According to Joint Guam Program Office officials, they expect to complete
a comprehensive master plan within 90 days after the record of decision is
finalized. Second, plans for the detailed force composition of units
relocating to Guam, associated facility requirements, and implications for
other services’ realignments on Guam continue to be refined. Third,
additional time is needed to fully address the challenges related to funding
uncertainties, operational requirements, and Guam’s economic and
infrastructure requirements. Without a comprehensive master plan for
Guam, Congress may have limited data on funding requirements on which
to base its decisions about appropriations.
We are recommending that DOD (1) initiate a process of developing its
global defense posture updates earlier each year so that it can provide
Congress the department’s overseas planning report with the
administration’s annual budget submission and (2) provide Congress with
annual updates of the Guam working-level plan until the department
finalizes a comprehensive master plan. In written comments on a draft of
this report, DOD partially agreed with our recommendation to initiate a
process of developing overseas master plans earlier each year so that it
can provide Congress the master plans with the administration’s annual
budget submission, but noted that it plans to replace the master plans with
annual updates of its global defense posture as DOD’s overseas planning
report to Congress. Since the Senate report accompanying the fiscal year
2009 military construction appropriation bill requires that these updates
include data similar to those presented in prior master plans and explains
that the timely filing of mandated reports is essential to the ability of the
committee to exercise its oversight responsibilities,15 we continue to
believe that our recommendation still has merit but have revised our
recommendation to reflect DOD’s approach since it meets the intent of our
original recommendation. DOD agreed with our recommendation to
provide Congress with annual updates of the Guam working-level plan
until the department finalizes a comprehensive master plan for the military
buildup on Guam. DOD’s comments are discussed in more detail in the
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section and are reprinted in
appendix II.
15
S. Rep. No. 110-428, at 10 (2008).
Page 6
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Background
In recent years, DOD has been undergoing a transformation that has been
described as the most comprehensive restructuring of U.S. military forces
overseas since the end of the Korean War. The realignment is to improve
the U.S. military’s flexibility to address conventional and terrorist threats
worldwide. As part of this restructuring, DOD created new bases in
Central Asia and Eastern Europe, downsized the U.S. presence in
Germany, and realigned forces in South Korea and Japan.
In 2004, the United States and Japan began a series of sustained security
consultations aimed at strengthening the U.S.-Japan security alliance to
better address the rapidly changing global security environment. The
resulting U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative established a
framework for the future of the U.S. force structure in Japan and is to
facilitate a continuing presence for U.S. forces in the Pacific theater by
relocating units to other areas, including Guam. As a result of this and
other DOD realignments planned on Guam, the total military and related
infrastructure buildup is estimated to increase Guam’s current population
of 171,000 by an estimated 25,000 active duty military personnel and
dependents. The population could swell further because these estimates
do not include DOD civilians, contractors, or transient personnel from a
Navy aircraft carrier that is planned to conduct periodic visits to Guam in
the future. The total cost of all services’ realignments on Guam is
estimated to be more than $13 billion, although additional costs are
anticipated for other DOD activities and the local Guam community.
Realignment costs for the Marine Corps move from Okinawa are to be
shared by the United States and Japan.
Overseas Master Plans
DOD uses military construction appropriations to plan, design, construct,
alter, and improve military facilities worldwide. The military construction
budget submission for fiscal year 2009 includes approximately
$24.4 billion for military construction and family housing, of which nearly
$1.1 billion (4.7 percent) is designated for specific overseas locations.
Most of these funds are to enhance and support enduring installations,
rather than for new or emerging requirements outside existing basing
structures.16
16
In our estimate for military construction and family housing for overseas locations, we
included Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, we
excluded worldwide classified and unspecified appropriations from our total because these
categories may include domestic military construction and family housing.
Page 7
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
In 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concern about
the use of military construction budget authority for projects at bases that
may become obsolete because of force realignments.17 Consequently, in
Senate Report 108-82, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed DOD
to prepare detailed, comprehensive master plans for the changing
infrastructure requirements at U.S. military facilities in each of its overseas
regional commands. According to the Senate report, at a minimum, the
plans were to identify precise facility requirements, the status of
properties being returned to host nations, funding requirements, and the
respective cost-sharing responsibilities of the United States and the host
nations. The Senate report also directed DOD to provide a report to
congressional defense committees on the plans’ status and implementation
with each yearly military construction budget request. The Senate report
directed us to provide the congressional defense committees an annual
assessment of the plans. Subsequently, the conference report
accompanying the fiscal year 2004 military construction appropriation bill
directed that DOD update its overseas master plans annually through fiscal
year 2009.18
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
responded to these congressional reporting requirements and assigned the
overseas regional combatant commands responsibility for preparing
comprehensive master plans for their respective areas of responsibility.
U.S. Pacific Command is responsible for DOD activities in East Asia and
South Asia; U.S. European Command is responsible for DOD activities in
Eastern and Western Europe; and U.S. Central Command is responsible
for DOD activities in the Middle East and Central Asia. In February 2007,
the President directed the Secretary of Defense to establish a new
geographic combatant command to consolidate the responsibility for DOD
activities in Africa that have been shared by U.S. Pacific Command, U.S.
European Command, and U.S. Central Command (see fig. 1).19 U.S. Africa
Command was officially established on October 1, 2007, with a goal to
reach full operational capability as a separate, independent geographic
17
S. Rep. No. 108-82, at 13 (2003).
18
H.R. Rep. No. 108-342, at 17 (2003) (Conf. Rep.).
19
U.S. Africa Command’s area of responsibility will include the African continent and its
island nations, with the exception of Egypt. Egypt will remain within U.S. Central
Command’s area of responsibility. These commands will have overlapping but distinct
relationships with Egypt, which will be addressed under separate memorandums of
agreement.
Page 8
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
combatant command by September 30, 2008. DOD officials said that U.S.
Africa Command will issue a plan for its area of responsibility next year.
Figure 1: U.S. Pacific, European, Central, and Africa Commands’ Proposed Areas of
Responsibility on September 30, 2008
ARCTIC
OCEAN
U.S. European
Command
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
U.S. Central
Command
U.S. Pacific
Command
PACIFIC
OCEAN
U.S. Africa
Command
INDIAN
OCEAN
Source: GAO analysis of DOD information.
Master Planning Effort for
Guam
In 2004, the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and the Japanese
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of State for Defense began a series
of sustained security consultations aimed at strengthening the U.S.-Japan
security alliance and addressing the changing global security environment.
The resulting U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative established a
framework for the future of the U.S. force structure in Japan designed to
reduce the U.S. military’s burden on Japanese communities and create a
continuing presence for U.S. forces in the Pacific theater. The initiative’s
goal of moving about 8,000 Marines and 9,000 dependents from Okinawa
to Guam by 2014 is one of several current proposals to build up military
forces and infrastructure on Guam. In addition to the initiative, the Navy
plans to enhance its infrastructure, logistics capabilities, and waterfront
facilities to support transient nuclear aircraft carriers, combat logistics
Page 9
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
force ships, submarines, surface combatants, and high-speed transport
ships at the Naval Base Guam. The Air Force plans to develop a global
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance strike hub at Andersen Air
Force Base in Guam by hosting various types of aircraft, such as fighters,
bombers, tankers, and Global Hawk systems, on a permanent and
rotational basis. The Army plans to place a ballistic missile defense task
force on Guam.
U.S. Pacific Command was responsible for the initial planning for the
movement of forces to Guam. In August 2006, OSD directed the Navy to
establish the Joint Guam Program Office to facilitate, manage, and execute
requirements associated with the rebasing of U.S. assets from Okinawa,
Japan, to Guam. Specifically, the office was tasked to lead the coordinated
planning efforts of all of DOD’s components and other stakeholders to
consolidate, optimize, and integrate the existing military infrastructure on
Guam. In addition, the office is to integrate the operational support
requirements; develop, program, and synchronize the services’ respective
realignment budgets; oversee military construction; and coordinate
government and business activities. The office is also expected to work
closely with Congress, U.S. agencies, the government of Guam, and the
government of Japan to manage this effort and develop a master plan.
As initiatives for expanding the U.S. military presence on Guam began to
emerge, the Senate Appropriations Committee noted the ambitiousness of
the military construction program and the need for a well-developed
master plan to efficiently use the available land and infrastructure. The
Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2007 military construction
appropriation bill directed DOD to submit a master plan for the military
buildup in Guam by December 29, 2006.20 The Senate report also directed
us to review DOD’s master planning effort for Guam as part of our annual
review of DOD’s overseas master plans. The conference report
accompanying the fiscal year 2008 military construction appropriation bill
extended the due date for the Guam master plan to September 15, 2008.21
20
S. Rep. No. 109-286, at 15 (2006).
21
H.R. Rep. No. 110-424, at 437 (2007) (Conf. Rep.).
Page 10
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Prior Reviews of the
Overseas Master Plans and
the Master Planning Effort
for Guam
We previously reported that while DOD’s overseas master plans generally
exceeded the reporting requirements established by Congress,
opportunities existed for the plans to provide more complete, clear, and
consistent information and to present a more definitive picture of future
requirements.22 In our 2007 report on DOD’s overseas master plans, we
suggested that Congress consider requiring the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that the overseas master plans include information on residual
value compensation23 and training limitations for U.S. Pacific Command,
which are discussed later in this report.24 We also suggested that Congress
consider requiring the Secretary of Defense to report periodically to the
defense committees on the status of the department’s planning efforts for
Guam to help ensure the best application of federal funds and leveraging
of options for supporting the military buildup until DOD finalizes a
comprehensive master plan. In our May 2008 testimony on the Guam
military buildup master planning effort, we reported that while DOD had
established a framework for the military buildup on Guam, many key
decisions remain and both DOD and the government of Guam faced
significant challenges.25 We also reported that Guam’s efforts to address
infrastructure challenges caused by the buildup were in their initial stages
and that existing uncertainties contributed to the difficulties in developing
precise plans.
22
See GAO-07-1015, GAO-06-913R, GAO-05-680R, and GAO-04-609NI.
23
Residual value compensation is funding paid by the host nation to the United States to
compensate for the value of U.S.-funded improvements to the base. The amount of
compensation is negotiated between the United States and the foreign country.
24
See GAO-07-1015.
25
GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Planning Efforts for the Proposed Military Buildup on
Guam Are in Their Initial Stages, with Many Challenges Yet to Be Addressed,
GAO-08-722T (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2008).
Page 11
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Overseas Master
Plans Generally
Reflect Changes,
Challenges, and Our
Prior
Recommendations,
but Could Be More
Timely
The fiscal year 2009 master plans generally reflect recent changes in the
U.S. overseas defense basing strategies and requirements and current
challenges that DOD faces in implementation. The plans also reflect DOD’s
responses to the recommendations we made in our previous reports
except that the U.S. Pacific Command plan does not provide the status of
the Air Force’s training challenges in South Korea, despite our prior
recommendation that it should describe the challenges and their potential
effects on infrastructure and funding requirements. DOD officials said that
since last year South Korea and the U.S. Air Force have taken steps to
address these training challenges. In addition, DOD has submitted the
plans to Congress several months after the annual budget submissions
even though the Senate and conference reports accompanying the fiscal
year 2004 military construction appropriation bill directed DOD to provide
updates of the master plans with its military construction budget
submissions. Without timely access to the plans, the congressional defense
committees may not have the information needed at the appropriate time
to prepare the annual defense and military construction legislation and to
carry out their oversight responsibilities.
Plans Update the
Evolution of Overseas
Basing Strategies and
Requirements
The fiscal year 2009 master plans incorporated recent changes associated
with the continuing evolution of U.S. overseas basing strategies and
requirements. Generally, major force structure realignments that were
discussed in the fiscal year 2009 master plans had already been mentioned
last year. However, for fiscal year 2009, several changes identified in the
overseas master plans included updated information involving realignment
initiatives in South Korea and Japan, DOD’s efforts to establish missile
defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland, and the ongoing
development of U.S. Africa Command.
The U.S. Pacific Command plan discussed the progress of realignment
initiatives, which will relocate military personnel and facilities in Japan
and South Korea. Specifically, the command reported that the U.S.-Japan
Defense Policy Review Initiative has served as an effective framework to
manage alliance transformation and realignments in Japan and that
planning and execution efforts are ongoing to achieve one of the largest
changes in recent history to U.S. force posture in the Pacific. Also, as part
of the initiative, the command described the importance of relocating
8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam and of consolidating the remaining
U.S. Marine Corps presence in Okinawa to reduce the impact on local
communities. It also included information on U.S. Forces Japan’s efforts to
return to the government of Japan U.S. facilities and more than 14,000
acres of land on Japan and Okinawa. Also, U.S. Pacific Command updated
Page 12
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
the status of the U.S.-South Korea Land Partnership Plan and the Yongsan
Relocation Plan,26 including its efforts to reduce major U.S. installations
from 41 to 10 (76 percent) in South Korea. The command also provided
information regarding almost 3,000 acres of land acquisitions, including
the expansion of Army Garrison Humphreys (formerly known as Camp
Humphreys) and other sites.
The U.S. European Command plan updated the network of forward
operating sites and cooperative security locations in Eastern Europe. For
example, the plan provided details on the mission, planned capabilities,
equipment and aircraft, population, and facility requirements for Novo
Selo Training Area in Bulgaria and Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base in
Romania. It also described recent efforts to proceed with formal
negotiations with the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic on
establishing missile defense sites and facility requirements to support this
effort. For example, it identified over $284 million in facility requirements
to support the ballistic missile defense program in the Czech Republic.
U.S. European Command also explained the establishment of U.S. Africa
Command and that its future mission is to conduct military-to-military
programs, military-sponsored activities, and other operations.
The U.S. Central Command plan reflected a long-term planning vision for
the development of required infrastructure in the region to achieve its
missions. The command also reported a need for an increase in both U.S.
military construction and host nation support funding. For example, the
command identified a goal of $1.7 billion in host nation funding, which it
considered reasonable since the infrastructure may also be used by the
host nation. Also, the command’s plan provides detailed descriptions of
each forward operating site by providing information on its mission (such
as providing logistical support), the units it could host, and its role in the
region (such as supporting the war against terrorism or strengthening
capabilities for rapid and flexible response in the Central Asian states), as
well as identifying the requirements for equipment and facilities at the site.
26
With the provisions of the Land Partnership Plan and the Yongsan Relocation Plan, U.S.
Forces Korea intends to strengthen its overall military effectiveness by consolidating
installations north of Seoul, including the Yongsan Army Garrison located in Seoul, into
two major hubs in the central and southern sections of South Korea. U.S. Forces Korea
expects the consolidation and relocation of thousands of soldiers to increase readiness,
efficiencies, and cost savings; enhance quality of life; provide a less-intrusive presence; and
increase training opportunities.
Page 13
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Plans Generally Reflect
Challenges
This year’s master plans discuss a number of challenges, such as
uncertainties with host nation relations and environmental concerns,
which DOD faces in the implementation of the plans. They also provide
more detailed descriptions of these challenges than prior years’ plans.
This Year’s Plans Provided
More Complete Descriptions of
Host Nation Relations
All of the regional commands describe to varying degrees the status of
recent negotiations and agreements with host nations in their fiscal year
2009 master plans. In our review of the overseas master plans in 2005, we
found that none of the commands fully explained the (1) status of or (2)
challenges to finalizing host nation agreements and recommended that the
commands briefly explain the status of negotiations with host nations to
provide more complete and clearer plans. These agreements depend
largely on the political environment and economic conditions in host
nations and can affect the extent of host nation support—access to
facilities or funding—to U.S. forces. Accordingly, the resulting agreements
may increase or decrease U.S.-funded costs for future infrastructure
changes. For example, this year:
•
The U.S. Pacific Command plan updates information on the results of the
U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative. The plan describes the
planned arrival of the USS George Washington, a nuclear aircraft carrier,
at Naval Base Yokosuka to replace the USS Kitty Hawk, a conventional
aircraft carrier. The plan also describes how the funding for the Japanese
Facilities Improvement Program, historically the source of major
construction on U.S. facilities in Japan, has been decreasing. For example,
the command noted that the funding for this program has decreased from
an estimated $1 billion in 1993 to $242 million. U.S. Forces Japan
anticipates that the government of Japan will continue to reduce these
funds because of Japan’s commitment to provide several other forms of
host nation support (i.e., utilities and Japanese labor force) and funding
for the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative under which the
Marine Corps forces are moving from Okinawa to Guam. Several DOD
officials believe that these financial commitments and other constraints
may result in U.S. facilities in Japan receiving less host nation support,
which in turn would require more financial support from the U.S.
government than in the past. In addition, the U.S. Pacific Command plan
provided details on current realignment efforts regarding the delayed
move from Yongsan Army Garrison in Seoul to Army Garrison Humphreys
south of Seoul. Originally expected to be completed by December 2008,
the plan stated that the move may not be completed until 2012. According
to the plan, early challenges with land procurement and bilateral funding
negotiations have now been overcome and the relocation is moving
forward. The plan also recognized that any future constraints on host
Page 14
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
•
•
Most of This Year’s Plans
Provided Descriptions of
Environmental Challenges
nation funding or U.S. military construction funds could further delay the
Yongsan Relocation Plan.
The U.S. European Command plan provided a status of ongoing
realignments in Europe. It also described the rationale for the
realignments and listed the facilities returned to the host nations.
Specifically, the plan provided information on efforts to return
installations in Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Turkey, and
several classified locations in Europe. It further reported that while
supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. Army Europe returned
nearly 20,000 soldiers and their families, including parts of the 1st Infantry
Division, back to the United States. U.S. Army Europe has also prepared
three military communities in Wuerzburg, Hanau, and Dermstadt for
return to the government of Germany. Also, the plan discussed the
relocation of U.S. Army Europe headquarters from Heidelberg to
Wiesbaden, Germany, to become the 7th Army deployable headquarters by
fiscal year 2012. The plan also discussed the Army’s efforts to keep U.S.
Army Garrison Baumholder as an enduring base because without it the
five other Army main operating bases (i.e., Grafenwoehr/Vilseck/Hohenfels
complex, Stuttgart, Ansbach, Kaiserslautern, and Wiesbaden) in Germany
would be filled beyond capacity. It also explained how U.S. European
Command’s transformation depends on host nation negotiations, politicalmilitary considerations, base realignment and closure in the United States,
and fiscal limitations.
The U.S. Central Command plan discussed efforts to solicit contributions
from host nations and to obtain the coordination and support that are
needed from DOD, the Department of State, and host nations. It discussed
the challenges of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the
command’s intention to sustain long-term access to locations across its
area of responsibility. The plan described how ongoing operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan have increased the basing footprint by using contingency
construction funding, although the command expects to work with DOD
and Congress to transition from using contingency funding to support its
sites. For the future, the command will focus on transitioning from current
contingency operations to developing plans for more a fixed posture, in
terms of forces and infrastructure.
Most of the commands addressed the extent of their environmental
challenges in this year’s master plans. In contrast, during our review of the
overseas master plans in 2005, none of the commands identified
environmental remediation and restoration issues. This year, U.S. Pacific
Command provided information on the removal of underground storage
tanks with host nation funding on U.S. installations in various locations in
South Korea. Also, U.S. Forces Korea identified one base that was closed
for which environmental information had been exchanged; however, the
Page 15
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
command was still in the process of returning the base to the government
of South Korea. This year, U.S. European Command included information
on the progress of the environmental cleanup of contaminated sites at
Rhein Main Air Base, Germany. The command identified that some sites
had been cleaned, others needed further investigation, but all
investigations are expected to be completed at the earliest by the end of
2012. Because there were no environmental issues in the command’s area
of responsibility, according to a command official, U.S. Central Command
did not report any environmental issues.
Overseas Master Plans
Generally Address Our
Prior Recommendations
Over the years, OSD has modified its guidance for preparing the overseas
master plans in an effort to address our prior recommendations related to
the following topics:
•
•
•
•
•
Facility requirements and costs. This year, all of the regional
commands identified their precise facility requirements and costs for fiscal
years 2009 through 2014, and reported estimated facility sustainment and
recapitalization costs for fiscal year 2009.
Base categories. This year, all of the commands categorized their
installations into applicable base categories of main operating base,
forward operating site, and cooperative security location, which provided
users a clearer picture of the infrastructure plans and requirements at
these sites. The commands also supplemented the information on base
categories with detailed data on the installations’ capabilities, overall
mission, population, and types of equipment and facilities located at each
site.
End state date. This year, all of the commands identified a common
strategic end state date, which identifies the last fiscal year of the
construction time frame and thus provides users a more complete and
clearer basis for tracking progress in meeting the command infrastructure
objectives for their areas of responsibility.
Host nation funding levels. This year, all of the commands reported
host nation funding levels at the project level for fiscal year 2009 and at the
aggregate level for fiscal years 2010 through 2014, which provided users a
better basis to determine the extent to which U.S. funding is needed for
facility requirements.27
Effects of other defense activities. This year, all of the commands
described the effects of other defense activities on implementation of their
27
During our review of the fiscal year 2009 master plans, we found that U.S. European
Command had omitted $153 million in host nation funding for 17 projects.
Page 16
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
master plans. For example, both U.S. European Command and U.S.
Central Command described how the development of U.S. Africa
Command would affect their commands and the increased need to
coordinate efforts in the future.
Until this year, the overseas master plans have not discussed residual
value even though we have recommended that they should. In response to
this recommendation, OSD and command officials stated that residual
value could not be readily predicted and therefore should not be assumed
in the master plans.28 These officials also reported that residual value is
based on the reuse of property being turned over to the host nation, which
is limited for most categories of military facilities and is often reduced by
actual or anticipated environmental remediation costs. However, we have
always maintained that since these issues vary by host nation and may not
be clear to all users of the plans, OSD should require commands, at a
minimum, to explain the issues with obtaining residual value in each host
nation and report the implications for U.S. funding requirements. This
year, U.S. European Command described the difficult and lengthy process
to return and negotiate the value of facilities to address our prior
recommendation.29 The command noted that attempting to forecast
residual value would not be prudent fiscal planning because of the
uncertainties in receiving residual value, such as the negotiated price to be
paid. After we received the U.S. European Command plan, command
officials provided data showing that the U.S. government has received
approximately $656 million in residual value and payment-in-kind
compensation since 1989. Payment-in-kind projects include installation of
water, sewer, electrical, and communication lines, and quality of life
projects, such as dormitories and neighborhood renovations.
No Recognition of the Training
Challenges in South Korea
While the overseas master plans have continued to evolve and have
provided more comprehensive data every year since fiscal year 2006, the
U.S. Pacific Command master plan does not describe the challenges the
command faces in addressing the U.S. Air Force’s training limitations in
South Korea even though we have recommended that it should describe
the challenges and their potential effects on infrastructure and funding
28
See GAO-07-1015.
29
In U.S. Pacific Command’s area of responsibility, there is no need for international
agreements to provide for residual value because host nations generally provide
replacement facilities. Arrangements vary by country in U.S. Central Command, where six
host nations have agreements to allow for residual value negotiations and nine countries
have no such agreements.
Page 17
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
requirements. While DOD officials indicated that the Air Force’s training
conditions have improved on the Korean peninsula, this information was
not provided in the U.S. Pacific Command’s plan.
For several years, the government of South Korea has attempted to
relocate the Koon-Ni training range, which had served as the primary airto-ground range for the Seventh Air Force. The air and ground range
management of the Koon-Ni training range was transferred to the
government of South Korea, which closed the range in August 2005. While
there is an agreement with the government of South Korea to enable U.S.
forces to train at other ranges, according to senior Air Force and U.S.
Forces Korea officials, the other ranges do not provide electronic scoring
capabilities necessary to meet the Air Force’s air-to-surface training
requirements and there is difficulty in obtaining access to these ranges. In
technical comments on a draft of this report, DOD officials said that the
South Korean government has increased the U.S. Air Force’s access to airto-ground training ranges and improved one training site. DOD also noted
that newly agreed upon airspace management practices are expected to
facilitate more training opportunities for U.S. Air Force pilots in South
Korea. However, U.S. Pacific Command did not discuss the progress made
in addressing these training challenges in its fiscal year 2009 overseas
master plan.
Though it omits the training challenges and progress in South Korea, the
U.S. Pacific Command plan provides details on the training limitations in
Japan. The plan discussed training limitations on carrier landing practice
and the need for aircraft from Naval Air Facility Atsugi to train at Iwo
Jima, Japan, which is considered a hardship due to the extra distance the
aircraft need to fly to Iwo Jima. Currently, the United States and
government of Japan are reviewing options that would provide the Naval
Air Facility Atsugi access to closer training ranges. The plan also discusses
how noise and land use sensitivities and maneuver area limitations in
Okinawa require U.S. forces to deploy to other Pacific locations to
supplement their training. It also describes efforts by U.S. Forces Japan
and the government of Japan to engage in bilateral discussions to address
these training shortfalls and explore solutions.
Overseas Master Plans
Generally Have Been
Submitted to Congress
Late
DOD has recently submitted the overseas master plans to Congress several
months after the annual budget submissions even though the Senate and
conference reports accompanying the fiscal year 2004 military
construction appropriation bill directed DOD to provide updates of the
master plans with each yearly military construction budget submission.
Page 18
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Recently, the Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2009 military
construction appropriations bill expressed concern about DOD’s frequent
failure to comply with deadlines for submitting congressionally mandated
reports.30 According to the Senate report, many of these mandated reports
are planning documents, intended to demonstrate that DOD is adequately
coordinating its many ongoing initiatives, such as the Global Defense
Posture moves and the Grow the Force initiative.31 The Senate report
further noted that these mandated reports are necessary to ensure proper
congressional oversight and to inform congressional decisions related to
DOD’s budget requests.
Congressional staff members have stressed to us the importance of DOD
providing the defense committees the overseas master plans at the same
time as the annual budget submission. The President generally submits the
administration’s budget submissions in February of each year.32 However,
DOD provided the defense committees the fiscal year 2007 plans on April
27 and the fiscal year 2008 plans on March 28. This year, DOD submitted
the plans to Congress in mid-May, 3 months after the fiscal 2009 military
construction budget submission was provided to Congress. According to
DOD officials, OSD’s most recent efforts to incorporate last-minute
changes in basing plans and projects contributed to providing Congress
the plans months after the military construction budget submission. In
addition, overseas command officials commented that the lengthy review
and approval process among the commands and OSD has contributed to
the plans’ lateness.
In comments on a draft of this report, DOD said that it intends to replace
the overseas master plans with annual updates of its global defense
posture as the department’s overseas planning report to Congress.
Because of continued concern over the possibility of changes to the global
defense posture, the Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2009
military construction appropriation bill extended the requirement for DOD
30
S. Rep. No. 110-428, at 12 (2008).
31
In January 2007, the President announced an initiative, referred to as Grow the Force, to
increase the end strength in the Army by more than 74,000 by 2013 and in the Marine Corps
by 27,000 personnel by 2011 to enhance U.S. forces, reduce stress on deployable personnel,
and provide necessary forces for success in the Global War on Terrorism.
32
The President is required to submit a budget for the following fiscal year to Congress on
or after the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in February. See 31
U.S.C. § 1105.
Page 19
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
to provide annually updated reports on the status of its global basing
initiative to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress.33 These global basing reports are to be submitted with the
administration’s budget submissions each year through fiscal year 2014
and should include, at a minimum, an overview of the current overseas
basing strategy and an explanation of any changes to the strategy; the
status of host nation negotiations; the cost to date of implementing the
military construction elements of the strategy; an updated estimate of the
cost to complete the construction program; and an updated timeline for
implementing the strategy. The Senate report further noted that the timely
filing of these reports is essential to the ability of the committee to
exercise its oversight responsibilities, and it is therefore important that
DOD adhere to the schedule and provide these reports at the same time as
the annual budget submission. Since the department will continue to
report on its overseas planning to Congress, DOD has an opportunity to
reexamine its timeline for producing these reports and provide them to
Congress with the administration’s annual budget submission to provide
Congress with adequate time for review. Without access to these reports
on a timely basis, congressional committees may not have the information
needed at the appropriate time to prepare the annual defense and military
construction legislation and to carry out oversight responsibilities of
DOD’s global realignment of U.S. forces and installations overseas.
DOD Has Established
a Framework for
Military Buildup on
Guam but Has Yet to
Develop the
Congressionally
Required Master Plan
DOD has established various planning and implementation documents that
serve as a framework to guide the military realignment and buildup on
Guam. However, the department has not issued a comprehensive master
plan for the buildup that was initially due in December 2006, which
Congress later extended to September 2008. While the Joint Guam
Program Office is coordinating the development of a working-level plan
for DOD that is to be submitted to Congress by the 2008 deadline, this is a
onetime requirement, and DOD officials said that this plan will be a
snapshot of the status of the planning process at the time of its completion
and will not be considered a comprehensive master plan for several
reasons. First, the results of the environmental impact statement and
resulting record of decision on the proposed military buildup, which are
expected to be completed by January 2010, will influence many key
decisions about the military infrastructure development on Guam. Also,
Joint Guam Program Office officials estimate that the office could
33
S. Rep. No. 110-428 at 10 (2008).
Page 20
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
complete a comprehensive master plan for Guam within 90 days once
these documents are completed. Second, plans for the detailed force
composition of units relocating to Guam, associated facility requirements,
and implications for other services’ realignments on Guam continue to be
refined. Third, additional time is needed to fully address the challenges
related to funding uncertainties, operational requirements, and Guam’s
economic and infrastructure requirements.
DOD Has Established a
Framework for Military
Realignment and Buildup
DOD has established various planning and implementation documents that
serve as a framework to guide the military realignment and buildup on
Guam. Originally, the Marine Corps realignment was discussed in the U.S.Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative, which established the framework
for the future of the U.S. force structure in Japan. The Japan Ministry of
Defense reported that based on bilateral meetings in 2005 and 2006, the
government of Japan had decided to support the United States in its
development of necessary facilities and infrastructure, including
headquarters buildings, barracks, and family housing, to hasten the
process of moving Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam. In July
2006, U.S. Pacific Command developed the Guam Integrated Military
Development Plan to provide an overview of the projected military
population and infrastructure requirements.34 The plan is based on a
notional force structure that was used to generate land and facility
requirements for basing, operations, logistics, training, and quality of life
involving the Marine Corps, Army, Air Force, Navy, and Special Operations
Forces in Guam. However, this plan is not considered a master plan for the
military buildup and provides limited information on the expected effects
of the military buildup on the local community and off-base infrastructure.
The Joint Guam Program Office has completed its first phase of the Guam
planning process and developed basic facility requirements with general
cost estimates, mapping concepts, and land use plans with preferred
alternatives. Through an analysis of available land on the island and DOD
preliminary operational requirements, the joint office has identified
alternative sites for the Marine Corps main encampment, family housing,
and aviation operations and training and for the Navy transient aircraft
carrier pier. However, the office has not identified its preferred sites for
the ballistic missile defense task force and firing and nonfiring training
34
U.S. Pacific Command, Guam Integrated Military Development Plan (Camp H.M. Smith,
Hawaii: July 11, 2006).
Page 21
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
ranges. According to Joint Guam Program Office officials, the second
phase of planning is in progress and will include more details, including
more specific information on the placement of buildings, roads, training
facilities, and utilities systems.
The Joint Guam Program Office is coordinating the multi-service
development of a working-level plan for DOD that is expected to be
submitted to congressional staff in September 2008. However, this is a
onetime requirement, and DOD officials said that this working-level plan
will not be considered a final comprehensive master plan. According to
Joint Guam Program Office officials, the working-level plan will be a
snapshot of the status of the planning process at the time of its
completion. It is being developed to provide DOD components with an
opportunity to review and provide input. Moreover, the plan will address
the realignment of Marine Corps forces in the context of other DODproposed actions on Guam, including the Navy’s plan to enhance its
infrastructure, logistics capabilities, and waterfront facilities and the
Army’s plan to place a ballistic missile defense task force on Guam.
Environmental Impact
Statement and Record of
Decision Are Needed to
Make Key Decisions but
Will Not Be Completed
until 2010
Before the Joint Guam Program Office can finalize its Guam master plan
and finalize key decisions, it will need to complete the environmental
impact statement and the resulting record of decision required by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.35 DOD officials said that the
results of these documents will influence many key decisions on the exact
location, size, and makeup of the military infrastructure development on
Guam. However, according to these officials, the environmental impact
statement and record of decision are not expected to be completed until
December 2009 and January 2010, respectively. Joint Guam Program
Office officials stated that development of a comprehensive master plan
for the military buildup on Guam depended on the completion date of the
record of decision and estimated that the office could complete a master
plan within 90 days once the record of decision is finalized.
On March 7, 2007, the Navy issued a public notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement pursuant to the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,36 as implemented by the
35
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 4321-4347.
36
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 4321-4347.
Page 22
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations,37 and Executive Order
12114. The notice of intent in the Federal Register38 states that the
environmental impact statement will:
•
•
•
Examine the potential environmental effects associated with relocating
Marine Corps command, air, ground, and logistics units (which comprise
approximately 8,000 Marines and their estimated 9,000 dependents) from
Okinawa to Guam. The environmental impact statement will examine
potential effects from activities associated with Marine Corps units’
relocation including operations, training, and infrastructure changes.
Examine the Navy’s plan to enhance the infrastructure, logistic
capabilities, and pier/waterfront facilities to support transient nuclear
aircraft carrier berthing at Naval Base Guam. The environmental impact
statement will examine potential effects of the waterfront improvements
associated with the proposed transient berthing.
Evaluate placing a ballistic missile defense task force (approximately 630
soldiers and their estimated 950 dependents) in Guam. The environmental
impact statement will examine potential effects from activities associated
with the task force, including operations, training, and needed
infrastructure changes.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the regulations
established by the Council on Environmental Quality, an environmental
impact statement must include a purpose and need statement, a
description of all reasonable project alternatives and their environmental
effects (including a “no action” alternative), a description of the
environment of the area to be affected or created by the alternatives being
considered, and an analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed
action and each alternative.39 Further, accurate scientific analysis, expert
agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. For example, federal agencies
such as DOD are required to ensure the professional integrity, including
scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses contained in the
environmental impact statement. Additionally, after preparing a draft
environmental impact statement, federal agencies such as DOD are
required to obtain the comments of any federal agency that has
jurisdiction by law or certain special expertise and request the comments
37
40 C.F.R. pts. 1500-1508.
38
72 Fed. Reg. 10186-7 (Mar. 7, 2007).
39
40 C.F.R. § 1502.13-1502.16.
Page 23
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
of appropriate state and local agencies, Native American tribes, and any
agency that has requested that it receive such statements. Following the
final environmental impact statement, DOD will prepare a record of
decision that will state what the decision is for the proposed military
buildup on Guam; identify alternatives considered and specify those that
are environmentally preferable; state whether all practicable mitigation
measures were adopted, and if not, explain why; and commit to a
monitoring and enforcement program to ensure implementation of
mitigation measures. Until an agency issues a final environmental impact
statement and record of decision, it generally may not take any action
concerning the proposal that would either have adverse environmental
effects or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.
DOD officials stated that performing these alternative site analyses and
cumulative effects analyses may delay the completion of a comprehensive
master plan and affect the construction schedule of the required military
facilities and infrastructure. DOD will submit its fiscal year 2010 budget
request to Congress for the first phase of military construction projects
prior to the completion of the environmental impact statement. Thus, DOD
may be asking Congress to fund the military construction projects without
the benefit of a completed environmental impact statement or a final
decision on the full extent of its facility and funding requirements. DOD
officials said that this practice is consistent with the department’s normal
planning, programming, and budgeting procedures routinely used for
large-scale construction projects. In such cases, construction projects are
not awarded and funds are not expended until after the record of decision
is completed. Joint Guam Program Office officials told us that immediately
after the environmental impact statement and record of decision are
completed, the department will commence construction of facilities in
efforts to meet the 2014 goal of moving Marines and their dependents from
Okinawa to Guam. However, some DOD and government of Guam officials
believe that this is an ambitious schedule considering the possibility that
the environmental impact statement could be delayed, the complexities of
moving thousands of Marines and dependents from Okinawa to Guam, and
the need to obtain funding from the United States and Japan to support
military construction projects.
Size and Makeup of Forces
and Other Variables Are
Not Yet Known
Although the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative identifies Marine
Corps units to move to Guam, plans for the detailed force composition of
units relocating to Guam, associated facility requirements, and
implications for other services’ realignments on Guam continue to be
refined. The U.S.-Japan realignment roadmap states that approximately
Page 24
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
8,000 Marines and their dependents will relocate to Guam. These units
include the Third Marine Expeditionary Force’s command element and its
major subordinate command headquarters: the Third Marine Division
Headquarters, Third Marine Logistics Group Headquarters, 1st Marine Air
Wing Headquarters, and 12th Marine Regiment Headquarters. The Marine
Corps forces remaining on Okinawa will consist of Marine Air-Ground
Task Force elements.
Marine Corps officials said that the Corps was reviewing its Pacific force
posture and associated requirements for training operations on Guam in
light of DOD’s plan to increase the number of Marines under the Grow the
Force initiative. At this time, no decisions have been made on whether to
deploy additional forces to Guam under this initiative. If such a decision is
made, the government of Japan would have no commitment to support
such additional forces on Guam.
The type of missions to be supported from Guam is a key factor in the
planning for infrastructure capabilities. The operational, housing, utilities,
and installation support facilities needed on Guam depend on the type,
size, frequency, and number of units; units may be permanent, rotational,
or transient. Desired capabilities and force structure define the training
and facility requirements, such as the number and size of airfield facilities,
ranges, family housing units, barracks, and schools and the capacity of the
installation support facilities needed to support operations and the
military population. Accordingly, Joint Guam Program Office officials said
that the master plan they were initiating will reflect efforts to build
“flexible” infrastructure, such as site preparation and utilities, that may
operate on Guam.
DOD Has Not Yet Fully
Addressed the Funding,
Operational, and Local
Infrastructure Challenges
of Relocating to Guam
DOD faces several significant challenges associated with the military
buildup on Guam, including addressing funding and operational challenges
and community and infrastructure impacts, which could affect the
development and implementation of its planning efforts. First, DOD has
not identified all funding requirements and may encounter difficulties in
obtaining funding given competing priorities within the department.
Second, DOD officials need to address the operational and training
limitations on Guam, such as for sealift and airlift capabilities, and training
requirements for thousands of Marines. Third, the increase in military
personnel and their dependents on Guam and the large number of
construction workers needed to build the required military facilities will
create challenges for Guam’s community and civilian infrastructure.
Page 25
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Funding Requirements Are Not
Fully Identified
DOD officials have yet to fully identify the funding requirements to
support the military buildup on Guam. The military services’ realignments
on Guam are estimated to cost over $13 billion; of that, the Marine Corps
buildup is estimated to cost $10.3 billion. Additionally, the $13 billion
estimate excludes the costs of all other defense organizations that will be
needed to support the additional military personnel and dependents on
Guam. For example, DOD agencies, including the Defense Logistics
Agency and the Defense Commissary Agency, will likely incur additional
costs to execute their missions to help support the services’ influx of
personnel, missions, and equipment to Guam.
Recently, Marine Forces Pacific officials estimated that the Marine Corps
realignment on Guam alone will exceed $15 billion, which is significantly
higher than the original $10.3 billion estimate. These additional operational
costs include the cost of high-speed vessels (procurement and
maintenance) to move Marines to and from Guam; training-related costs in
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; relocation costs for
personnel, equipment, and material to Guam; costs of facility furnishings,
such as furniture and office equipment; and real estate costs if additional
land is required in Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands. These officials have also identified base operational and
maintenance costs that will be funded with U.S. appropriations after the
move to Guam but are currently reimbursed by the government of Japan
through its host nation funding programs like the Japan Facility
Improvement Program and special measures agreements that provide
support for labor and utility services for Marine Corps bases in Okinawa.
In addition, cost estimates for the relocation of forces to Guam do not
include all costs associated with the development of several training
ranges for the Marine Corps in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands—
estimated to cost $2 billion. Also, the Marine Corps estimates that the
strategic lift operating from Guam will cost an additional $88 million
annually as compared with operations from Okinawa.
Some uncertainties also exist in the cost-sharing arrangement with the
government of Japan. The government of Japan is expected to contribute a
total of $6.09 billion of which up to $2.8 billion would be in funds without
reimbursement for the construction of operational and support
infrastructure, such as barracks and office buildings. The government of
Japan is also expected to provide the remainder, another $3.3 billion, in
loans and equity investments for installation support infrastructure, such
as on-base power and water systems, and military family housing. Most of
this $3.3 billion is planned to be recouped over time by the government of
Japan in the form of service charges paid by the Marine Corps and in rents
Page 26
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
paid by U.S. servicemembers with their overseas housing allowances
provided by DOD using funds appropriated by Congress. Also, according
to DOD officials, several conditions must be met before the government of
Japan contributes some or all of the $6.09 billion to the cost of the Marine
Corps move. First, the government of Japan has stipulated that its funds
will not be made available until it has reviewed and agreed to specific
infrastructure plans for Guam. Second, failure or delay of any initiative
outlined in the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative may affect
another, because various planning variables need to fall into place in order
for the initiatives to move forward. For example, according to DOD, the
commencement of facility construction on Guam in fiscal year 2010
depends on the government of Japan showing progress in the construction
of the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma replacement facility. Finally, the
government of Japan may encounter challenges in funding its share of the
Marine Corps move considering Japan’s other national priorities and its
commitments associated with funding several other major realignments of
U.S. forces in Japan under the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative.
Operational and Training
Challenges
DOD also has not fully addressed operational challenges, such as
providing appropriate mobility support and training capabilities to meet
Marine Corps requirements. According to Marine Forces Pacific officials,
the Marine Corps in Guam will depend on strategic military sealift and
airlift to reach destinations in Asia that will be farther away than was the
case when the units were based in Okinawa. For example, in a
contingency operation that requires sealift, the ships may have to deploy
from Sasebo, Japan, or other locations to collect the Marines and their
equipment on Guam and then go to the area where the contingency is
taking place, potentially risking a delayed arrival at certain potential
trouble spots since Guam is farther away from these locations than
Okinawa. According to Marine Corps officials, amphibious shipping
capability and airlift capacity are needed in Guam, which may include
expanding existing staging facilities and systems support for both sealift
and airlift.
Existing training ranges and facilities on Guam are not sufficient to meet
the training requirements of the projected Marine Corps force. A DOD
analysis of training opportunities in Guam concluded that no ranges on
Guam are suitable for the needs of the projected Marine Corps force
because of inadequacy in size or lack of availability. U.S. Pacific Command
is also in the process of conducting a training study that covers Guam and
the Northern Mariana Islands to see what options are available for training
in the region. Marine Forces Pacific officials stated that live-fire artillery
training, amphibious landings, and tracked vehicle operations will be
Page 27
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
challenging because of the combination of factors associated with the
limited size of training areas available and the environmental concerns on
the Northern Mariana Islands.
Increase in Military Presence Is
Expected to Have Significant
Impact on the Local
Community and Public
Infrastructure
The increase in military presence is expected to have a significant impact
on Guam’s community and public infrastructure; however, these potential
effects have yet to be fully addressed. This undertaking is estimated to
increase the current Guam population of approximately 171,000 by an
estimated 25,000 active duty military personnel and dependents (or 14.6
percent) to 196,000. The Guam population could also swell further
because DOD’s personnel estimates do not include defense civilians and
contractors who are also likely to move to Guam to support DOD
operations. DOD officials estimate that they will require 500 defense
civilians and contractors to support the Marine Corps base operations;
however, they expect many of these jobs to be filled by military spouses or
the local population. This estimate does not include personnel for other
service realignments on Guam.
DOD and government of Guam officials recognize that the increase in
construction due to the military buildup will exceed local capacity and the
availability of local workers. For example, DOD officials cite a July 2008
study that estimated the annual construction capacity to be approximately
$1 billion to $1.5 billion and potentially $2.5 billion with improvements to
the port and road networks compared with the estimated construction
capacity of more than $3 billion per year needed by DOD to meet the
planned fiscal year 2014 completion date. In addition, Guam currently
faces a shortage of skilled construction workers. Preliminary analysis
indicates that 15,000 to 20,000 construction workers will be required to
support the projected development on Guam. One estimate is that Guam
may be able to meet only 10 to 15 percent of the labor requirement locally.
Nearby countries may have workers willing to come to Guam to take jobs
to construct needed facilities, but these workers will have to enter the
United States on temporary nonagricultural workers visas.40 Joint Guam
Program Office officials cite the recently passed legislation that will
increase the cap of temporary workers in Guam from 2009 until 2014 as
addressing many of their concerns about temporary workers’ visas.41 At
40
This requirement would not apply to citizens from the freely associated states of the
Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau who may enter the Under States, including Guam,
to work without visas under the terms outlined in each country’s compact of free
association with the United States.
41
Pub. L. No. 110-229 § 702 (2008).
Page 28
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
the same time, the government of Guam reports that the influx of foreign
workers would put a strain on local emergency care services, medical
facilities, public utilities, transportation networks, and the availability of
temporary housing.42
In addition, as we recently testified, DOD and government of Guam
officials recognize that the island’s infrastructure is inadequate to meet the
increased demand due to the military buildup.43 For example:
•
•
•
•
•
Guam’s commercial port has capacity constraints with pier berthing space,
crane operations, and container storage locations.
Guam’s two major highways are in poor condition and, when ordnance
(ammunition and explosives) is unloaded from ships for Andersen Air
Force Base now and for the Marine Corps in the future, the ordnance must
be transported on one of these major roads that run through highly
populated areas.
Guam’s electrical system—the sole power provider on the island—is not
reliable and has transmission problems resulting in brownouts and voltage
and frequency fluctuations. The system may not be adequate to deliver the
additional energy requirements associated with the military buildup.
Guam’s water and wastewater treatment systems are near capacity and
have a history of failure due to aged and deteriorated distribution lines.
The military buildup may increase demand by at least 25 percent.
Guam’s solid waste facilities face capacity and environmental challenges
as they have reached the end of their useful life. Currently, the solid waste
landfills in Guam have a number of unresolved issues related to discharge
of pollutants and are near capacity.
Government of Guam officials stated that Guam will require significant
funding to address anticipated public infrastructure challenges; however,
these officials have not identified sufficient resources necessary to
support this buildup. In a recent congressional hearing, the Governor of
Guam testified that the government of Guam will need $6.1 billion to
address infrastructure upgrades, such as projects regarding the port
expansion, road enhancements, power and water upgrades, education, and
42
Civilian Military Task Force, Planning for Military Growth: November 2007 Needs
Assessment (Hagåtña, Guam: November 2007).
43
See GAO-08-722T.
Page 29
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
public health improvements.44 These costs are separate from and in
addition to DOD’s cost estimates of the military realignments on Guam.
Conclusions
The evolution of U.S. overseas defense basing strategies and infrastructure
requirements continues, as reflected in the fiscal year 2009 overseas
master plans, and many efforts to consolidate, realign, and shift the U.S.
military presence globally are still under way and are years from
completion. For the last 4 years, the overseas master plans have been an
important means for keeping Congress informed of the challenges DOD
faces and the costs associated with such efforts. However, DOD has
submitted the plans to the congressional defense committees months after
the annual budget submissions even though the congressional reporting
requirement directs that updates of the plans be provided with each yearly
budget submission. Recently, a congressional committee report expressed
concern about the department’s frequent failure to comply with deadlines
for submitting mandated reports and reiterated the importance of
receiving the reports in a timely manner.45 The timely filing of the
department’s mandated reports was seen as essential to supporting the
committee’s need for current information when making decisions related
to DOD’s budget requests and to permit the committee to effectively
exercise its oversight responsibilities. Without having the mandated
reports in a timely manner, Congress is likely to be missing up-to-date
information needed for making funding decisions and carrying out its
oversight responsibilities. Since DOD intends to replace the overseas
master plans with annual updates of its global defense posture as DOD’s
overseas planning report to Congress, the department has an opportunity
to reexamine its timeline for producing these reports to issue them with
the administration’s annual budget submission to provide Congress with
adequate time for review.
With respect to the military buildup on Guam, it is likely that it will be
2010 or later before DOD is able to complete a comprehensive master plan
for the military buildup. A comprehensive master plan is important for
Congress, as it helps to ensure that Congress has a complete picture of
facility requirements and associated costs in order to make appropriate
44
Governor of Guam statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, The United States Military Buildup on Guam: Impact on the Civilian
Community, Planning, and Response (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2008).
45
S. Rep. No. 110-428, at 12 (2008).
Page 30
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
funding decisions and to assist DOD, federal departments and agencies,
the government of Guam, and other organizations in addressing the
challenges associated with the military buildup. At the same time, it is
reasonable to expect that until DOD has the results of the environmental
impact statement and record of decision required by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, it will not be able to finalize a
comprehensive master plan for the reasons that we stated in our report.
Meanwhile, the Joint Guam Program Office is coordinating the multiservice development of a working-level plan for DOD that is to be
submitted to Congress in September 2008. However, no requirement exists
to report periodically on the status of DOD’s planning efforts after this
date. In our 2007 report, we suggested that Congress consider requiring
the Secretary of Defense to report periodically to the defense committees
on the status of the department’s planning efforts for Guam to help ensure
the best application of federal funds and leveraging of options for
supporting the military buildup until DOD finalizes a comprehensive
master plan.46 Because of the uncertainty in DOD’s plans for the military
buildup, we continue to believe that this approach has merit and that the
defense committees would find annual updates of the Joint Guam Program
Office’s working-level plan for Guam useful to inform congressional
decisions and ensure proper congressional oversight from September 2008
to the date on which the office completes its comprehensive master plan,
currently expected no sooner than 2010.
Recommendations for
Executive Action
•
•
To inform congressional decisions and ensure proper congressional
oversight, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following
two actions:
Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics to initiate a process of developing global defense posture
updates earlier each year so that DOD can provide the congressional
defense committees the overseas planning report with the administration’s
annual budget submission.
Direct the Executive Director of the Joint Guam Program Office to provide
the congressional defense committees with annual updates of the Guam
working-level plan until a comprehensive master plan is finalized and
submitted to Congress.
46
See GAO-07-1015.
Page 31
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially agreed with
our recommendation to initiate a process of developing future overseas
master plans earlier each year so that DOD can provide them to the
congressional defense committees with the administration’s annual budget
submission, and agreed with our recommendation to provide the
congressional defense committees with annual updates of the Guam
working-level plan until a comprehensive master plan is finalized and
submitted to Congress. While DOD partially agreed with the first
recommendation, it also stated that it plans to replace the expired
requirements for the overseas master plans with annual updates of its
global defense posture as DOD’s overseas planning report to Congress.
DOD further commented that the report development process will support
submission with the administration’s annual budget request. Since the
Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2009 military construction
appropriation bill requires that these updates include data similar to those
presented in prior master plans and explains that the timely filing of
mandated reports is essential to the ability of the committee to exercise its
oversight responsibilities,47 we believe that this effort to replace the
overseas master plans with the global defense posture updates will meet
the intent of our original recommendation. Therefore, we revised our
recommendation to reflect that DOD plans to replace the master plans
with annual updates of its global defense posture as the department’s
overseas planning report to Congress.
DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. DOD also provided
technical comments, which we have incorporated into the report as
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of
the Marine Corps; the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command; the
Commander, U.S. European Command; the Commander, U.S. Central
Command, and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies
will be made available to others upon request. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at
(202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
47
S. Rep. No. 110-428.
Page 32
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. The GAO staff members who made key contributions to this
report are listed in appendix III.
Brian J. Lepore, Director
Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 33
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
List of Committees
The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman
The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Chairman
The Honorable Thad Cochran
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Tim Johnson
Chairman
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Military Construction,
Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Chairman
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives
The Honorable John P. Murtha
Chairman
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Page 34
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
The Honorable Chet Edwards
Chairman
The Honorable Zach Wamp
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Military Construction,
Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Page 35
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
To determine the extent to which the fiscal year 2009 overseas master
plans have addressed changes since the last plans, the Department of
Defense’s (DOD) challenges, and our prior recommendations, and to
examine their timeliness, we analyzed the overseas master plans and
compared them to the reporting requirements in the congressional
mandate and the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) guidance. We
compared and contrasted the fiscal years 2008 and 2009 overseas master
plans in order to identify improvements and updated challenges in the
plans. We also assessed the quantity and quality of the data describing the
base categories, host nation funding levels, facility requirements and costs,
environmental remediation issues, and other issues affecting the
implementation of the plans. To discuss the reporting requirements, host
nation agreements and funding levels, U.S. funding levels and sources,
environmental remediation and restoration issues, property returns,
residual value, and training requirements, we met with officials from OSD;
U.S. Pacific Command; U.S. Army Pacific; U.S. Pacific Fleet; U.S. Marine
Forces Pacific; U.S. Pacific Air Forces; U.S. Forces Korea; U.S. Eighth
Army; Seventh Air Force; U.S. Naval Forces Korea; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Far East District; U.S. Forces Japan; U.S. Army Japan; U.S. Air
Forces Japan; U.S. Naval Forces Japan; U.S. Marine Forces Japan; Naval
Facilities Engineering Command Far East, Japan; U.S. European
Command; U.S. Army Europe; U.S. Naval Forces Europe; U.S. Air Force
Europe; U.S. Central Command; and U.S. Special Operations Command.
We also analyzed available reports, documents, policies, directives,
international agreements, and guidance to keep abreast of ongoing
changes in overseas defense basing strategies and requirements. To
directly observe the condition of facilities and the status of selected
construction projects, we visited and toured facilities at Garrison
Wiesbaden and Garrison Grafenwoehr, Germany; Camp Schwab, Camp
Zama, Yokosuka Naval Base, and Yokota Air Base, Japan; and Yongsan
Army Garrison and Garrison Humphreys, South Korea.
To determine the status of DOD’s planning efforts for the Guam military
buildup, we met with officials from OSD, the Air Force, the Navy, U.S.
Pacific Command, and the Joint Guam Program Office. In general, we
discussed the current planning framework for the military buildup, the
schedule and development of a comprehensive master plan, and the status
of the environmental impact study required by the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. In addition, we met with officials from U.S. Pacific
Fleet; U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific; U.S. Marine Forces Japan; Third
Marine Expeditionary Forces; U.S. Forces Japan; U.S. Army Pacific; and
Pacific Air Forces to discuss the challenges and various factors that can
affect U.S. infrastructure requirements and costs associated with the
Page 36
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
military buildup, to determine if funding requirements to accommodate
the buildup have been identified, and to identify operational and training
challenges associated with the buildup. We also visited Naval Base Guam;
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam; and other military sites in Guam to
directly observe the installations and future military construction sites. We
analyzed available reports, documents, and international agreements to
keep abreast of ongoing activities in Guam pertaining to challenges that
may affect DOD’s development and implementation of a comprehensive
master plan for the military buildup. To identify the funding and local
infrastructure challenges, we met with the Governor and his staff, Guam
Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives, and representatives from
the Guam legislature, the Mayors’ Council of Guam, the Guam Chamber of
Commerce, Guam’s Civilian Military Task Force, and community groups
on Guam.
We met with U.S. Special Operations Command officials; however, its
planning efforts were not specifically required for the overseas master
plans in response to the congressional mandates. In addition, we did not
include U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command in our
analysis because these commands have significantly fewer facilities
overseas than the other regional commands in the Pacific, Europe, and
Central Asia.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 through
August 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Page 37
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Defense
Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Defense
Page 38
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Defense
Page 39
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov
Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Mark Little, Assistant Director;
Nelsie Alcoser; Mae Jones; Kate Lenane; Julia Matta; and Jamilah Moon
made major contributions to this report.
Page 40
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products
Overseas Master
Plans/Global Posture
Force Structure: Preliminary Observations on the Progress and
Challenges Associated with Establishing the U.S. Africa Command.
GAO-08-947T. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2008.
Defense Infrastructure: Overseas Master Plans Are Improving, but DOD
Needs to Provide Congress Additional Information about the Military
Buildup on Guam. GAO-07-1015. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2007.
Defense Management: Comprehensive Strategy and Annual Reporting
Are Needed to Measure Progress and Costs of DOD’s Global Posture
Restructuring. GAO-06-852. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2006.
DOD’s Overseas Infrastructure Master Plans Continue to Evolve. GAO06-913R. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2006.
Opportunities Exist to Improve Comprehensive Master Plans for
Changing U.S. Defense Infrastructure Overseas. GAO-05-680R.
Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2005.
Defense Infrastructure: Factors Affecting U.S. Infrastructure Costs
Overseas and the Development of Comprehensive Master Plans. GAO-04609NI. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004.
Overseas Presence: Issues Involved in Reducing the Impact of the U.S.
Military Presence on Okinawa. GAO/NSIAD-98-66. Washington, D.C.:
March 2, 1998.
Community Growth Bases
Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help
Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth. GAO08-665. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2008.
Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road
Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations. GAO-08-602R.
Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2008.
Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely
Infrastructure Support for Army Installations Expecting Substantial
Personnel Growth. GAO-07-1007. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007.
Page 41
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Related GAO Products
U.S. Insular Areas
Defense Logistics: Navy Needs to Develop and Implement a Plan to
Ensure That Voyage Repairs Are Available to Ships Operating near
Guam when Needed. GAO-08-427. Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2008.
Defense Infrastructure: Planning Efforts for the Proposed Military
Buildup on Guam Are in Their Initial Stages, with Many Challenges Yet
to Be Addressed. GAO-08-722T. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2008.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Pending Legislation
Would Apply U.S. Immigration Law to the CNMI with a Transition
Period. GAO-08-466. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2008.
U.S. Insular Areas: Economic, Fiscal, and Financial Accountability
Challenges. GAO-07-119. Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2006.
U.S. Insular Areas: Multiple Factors Affect Federal Health Care Funding.
GAO-06-75. Washington, D.C.: October 14, 2005.
Environmental Cleanup: Better Communication Needed for Dealing
with Formerly Used Defense Sites in Guam. GAO-02-423. Washington,
D.C.: April 11, 2002.
Compact of Free Association: Negotiations Should Address Aid
Effectiveness and Accountability and Migrants’ Impact on U.S. Areas.
GAO-02-270T. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2001.
Foreign Relations: Migration From Micronesian Nations Has Had
Significant Impact on Guam, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands. GAO-02-40. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 2001.
U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution. GAO/OGC-98-5.
Washington, D.C.: November 7, 1997.
Insular Areas Update. GAO/GGD-96-184R. Washington, D.C.:
September 13, 1996.
U.S. Insular Areas: Information on Fiscal Relations with the Federal
Government. GAO/T-GGD-95-71. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 1995.
U.S. Insular Areas: Development Strategy and Better Coordination
Among U.S. Agencies Are Needed. GAO/NSIAD-94-62. Washington, D.C.:
February 7, 1994.
(351100)
Page 42
GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
GAO’s Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go
to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each.
A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders
should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, DC 20548
To order by Phone: Voice:
TDD:
Fax:
(202) 512-6000
(202) 512-2537
(202) 512-6061
Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional
Relations
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER